UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 1, 2013
NIKKI BEACH HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Dale S. Fischer, United States District Judge
Present: The Honorable DALE S. FISCHER, United States District Judge
Debra Plato Not Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order REMANDING Case to State Court
This case was previously remanded to state court because the removing defendant failed to establish that the parties were completely diverse. The matter has been removed again on the same grounds as before. There have been no intervening changes of fact or law that would make a second removal proper. See Peabody v. Maud Van Cortland Hill Schroll Trust, 892 F.2d 772, 776-77 (9th Cir. 1989). Defendant merely better documents the jurisdictional allegations based on facts that would have been known to it at the time of the first removal. The second notice of removal is, in essence, a motion for reconsideration of the Court's prior remand. The Court has no jurisdiction to consider such a motion. Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 837 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1988).
The case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.